snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 16 May 2017, 02:25 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 7,792
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
Tonight on FAUX Noise, Sean Hannity talked about Hillary Clinton's emails.
Do people still care about her emails? I'd like to think, but am probably wrong, sigh, that this particular distraction is wearing a bit thin.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 16 May 2017, 02:29 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 22,621
Icon07

This is multiple times that he has gotten his crew to go out and say things to protect him and then boldly admitted the illegal and unconstitutional thing they were denying. We all know enough about human behaviour to know that people have a very powerful reality denial system but this is getting downright terrifying. And they are obviously terrified of doing the slightest thing against him. SMH.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 16 May 2017, 03:43 PM
hotrod hotrod is offline
 
Join Date: 24 May 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 864
Default

Again, I see that key Republicans find these events "concerning", "troubling" and "worrying", just like several other times that Trump has done or said something stupid. When are they are going to do something about it?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 16 May 2017, 04:11 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,183
Default

A conservative radio host and blogger, Eric Erikson, has posted a story claiming that he knows one of the sources of the Washington Post story, that the source had been a strong Trump supporter, and that it's "worse than" what's being reported. https://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/con...ump-supporter/

(You can find the whole story on his site, but I don't really want to link there directly.)

Also, don't fall into the trap of arguing that what Trump did was illegal. It might not be, because he has the power to declassify things. The important thing is how reckless, imprudent, stupid, selfish, and impulsive it was. (Plus more, but you get the gist).

The intelligence came from a partner with whom we have an agreement the details of which are themselves tightly restricted information. We haven't shared the info even with our allies, and did not have permission to share it. Trump gave out the info while bragging about what great intel he gets. He gave it to the foreign minister and ambassador, *and their aides*!

White House officials scrambled to notify the CIA and NSA that the info was out, and they had to scramble to keep the info out of memos and transcripts that would circulate internally, to keep it from further spreading.

One of the things he revealed was the name of the city where the information came from. He clearly has put lives at risk, besides jeopardizing a continuing information stream. A stream which could have been providing info on Russia's activities in Syria as well.

The obtuseness level is truly unbelievable.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 16 May 2017, 04:13 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 10,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod View Post
Again, I see that key Republicans find these events "concerning", "troubling" and "worrying", just like several other times that Trump has done or said something stupid. When are they are going to do something about it?
I'm pretty sure they're not going to: as long as he's around to serve as a distraction and not oppose legislation they want to pass, they've made it clear that they don't care if he gives Putin the nuclear codes while having sex with a goat in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 16 May 2017, 04:25 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,183
Default

I think they will stop him when they see him as more of a liability than an asset. Right now, there are multiple agendas in play. Individual Republicans must still think they can distance themselves, and they are not yet grappling with what's going to happen to the party, or in 2020.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 16 May 2017, 04:27 PM
Magdalene Magdalene is offline
 
Join Date: 30 October 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue View Post
He has actually acknowledged he did it. But it's ok because he has an "absolute right" to do so. Why do I think the same folk who will scream loudest in support of this would have been the same ones baying "lock her up" had Clinton done the same thing?
I've seen his fans twisting that as, "He didn't say he did it, he just said he has the right to do it!"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 16 May 2017, 06:36 PM
Kermor Kermor is offline
 
Join Date: 22 June 2012
Location: Bois d'Arcy, France
Posts: 264
France

As a great american president once said :

"When the president does it, it's not illegal."

Now, who was he ? Oh right.... Nixon.

Excuse me for a moment.

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 16 May 2017, 07:32 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 72,653
Default

Well, in this case he's right about it not being illegal.

That doesn't mean it was ok. See erwins' post.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 16 May 2017, 09:26 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,183
Default

Having looked at the relevant law, what applies here in my view isn't so much that the president can declassify the information (which is what many sources are talking about, but would be problematic here, as they clearly want the information to remain protected), but that the president can determine who is authorized to receive it. Unless there is a separate law about that, and how the president makes such designations, I would think that is the part that most clearly protects him here. By disclosing the info to the people he did, he had effectively designated them as authorized to receive it.

The law in question is 18 USC section 798.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 16 May 2017, 09:45 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,397
Baseball

Very interesting thing I just heard. Apparently, some GOP insiders are feeling out of sorts. They can't defend Trump because in defending him they would make him look bad.

What is being reported is that the President is so poor at reading printed intelligence material and has such a poor grasp of the intelligence that it is impossible for him to have released any information to the Russians that could compromise the US or its allies.

Whether it is true or not, in my opinion, is moot. He showed intent and actually went through with it. Even if he was spewing wrong stuff, he thought he was revealing the good stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 16 May 2017, 09:54 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,183
Default

I think it's tough to take anything in his defense at face value right now.

I know he has supposedly required the multi-page briefings he gets to have a one-page bullet points only summary, but there's nothing that makes me think he didn't actually have the info. I mean, someone probably went over it with him in detail when talking about imposing the new electronic devices flight restrictions--and there has been recent talk of expanding those, so he probably had someone talk to him about it recently.

And, of course, there is nothing at all reassuring about that defense, even if it were true.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 16 May 2017, 09:54 PM
Brad from Georgia's Avatar
Brad from Georgia Brad from Georgia is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2000
Location: Snellvile, GA
Posts: 13,021
Default

How can anyone stand to work for Trump? He sends out his surrogates to deny that any such thing ever happened, period!

Then he turns around and says Okay, he did share the classified info, but he can do it because he's the President. Thereby making all his surrogates look like idiots or hypocrites.

My God, Groo treats his minions better than Trump treats his, and Groo is, let's face it, despicable.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 16 May 2017, 10:24 PM
TallGeekyGirl's Avatar
TallGeekyGirl TallGeekyGirl is online now
 
Join Date: 31 December 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,536
Default

Well what do you expect from a mendicant?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 16 May 2017, 10:26 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 7,792
Default Free Advice to Trump Aides: Quit While You Can

On Monday night, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, President Trumpís widely admired national security adviser, held a hastily convened news conference to try to knock down reports that Mr. Trump had shared highly classified information with Russia ó only to have Mr. Trump appear to confirm the reports in two Tuesday morning tweets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/o...-can.html?_r=0
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 16 May 2017, 11:07 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,397
Baseball

Quote:
In private, three administration officials conceded that they could not publicly articulate their most compelling ó and honest ó defense of the president: that Mr. Trump, a hasty and indifferent reader of printed briefing materials, simply did not possess the interest or knowledge of the granular details of intelligence gathering to leak specific sources and methods of intelligence gathering that would do harm to United States allies.
The New York Times had this paragraph in a larger story on the issue that speaks to what I heard on the radio and posted earlier.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/u...T.nav=top-news

The US is getting more and more bizarre by the half day.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 17 May 2017, 12:25 AM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 11,183
Default

I think that is another (albeit unflattering) effort to deflect attention to whether he disclosed sources and methods. The Washington Post article doesn't say he did that. He disclosed the top secret information itself. It happens that some of the details of that information can lead to the sources and methods, or significantly narrow it down, which puts the information stream, and the people involved, in danger. There are good reasons not to share the information itself, even without specific sources and methods details, with Russia.

This sources and methods angle is what McMaster's defense initially focussed on as well. (Now he's on to, there was nothing inappropriate about what he disclosed.)

Last edited by erwins; 17 May 2017 at 12:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 17 May 2017, 12:28 AM
DrRocket's Avatar
DrRocket DrRocket is offline
 
Join Date: 03 February 2006
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 2,033
Read This! OOPS

This post belonged in a different thread.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 17 May 2017, 12:59 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is online now
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,484
Mouse

What do we have to do to get Donald Trump to accept that Putin will never ask him to the prom, no matter how much he kisses up to him? Because we sure as heck can't count on the GOP; they sold their souls for money and power and consequently, they do not care.

I'm also not sure to what extent we can count on the Democratic Party either. They've continued to try Bipartisanship, ever since the Clinton-era, even though it keeps blowing up in their faces. Compromise, Bipartisanship, and Reaching Across the Aisle, are fine ideals, but they only work when both sides are made up of adults who, despite differing views, genuinely want to get stuff done. It doesn't work when one side is made up of adults and the other side is made up of petulant brats who will burn everything down out of spite.

So I'm wondering if we should either hook up Trump and Putin, give Trump Russian citizenship and a position within Putin's government, or all of the above. It may be the only solution.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 17 May 2017, 01:41 AM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,849
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouse View Post
I'm also not sure to what extent we can count on the Democratic Party either.
I honestly donít know if there is anything that the Democrats can do at this point seeing that they donít possess majorities in either the House or Senate. And even of they could, the Republicans are going to shoot it down.

The only way the Republicans are going to stop Trump is for Trump to cause substantial harm to their re-election chances. Thats the only way they will act on anything Trump related. The Republicans are party first and that is the only thing that they will act on.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How the Trump Organization's Foreign Business Ties Could Upend U.S. National Security TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 0 15 September 2016 12:26 PM
AP: Donald Trump's campaign chairman tied to undisclosed foreign lobbying Psihala Soapbox Derby 2 18 August 2016 12:23 AM
The highly reliable, definitely-not-crazy places where Donald Trump gets his news Bonnie Snopes Spotting 7 13 August 2016 08:45 PM
Trump Seeks More Foreign Guest Workers For His Companies TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 2 28 July 2016 03:29 PM
Highly Educated, Highly Indebted: The Lives of Today's 27-Year-Olds Sue Social Studies 5 27 January 2014 12:50 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.